srythfandomcom-20200214-history
Template talk:Questbox
About the template * Is it really necessary to separate lines in the Rewards section by tags? I feel that will make more difficult for "non-technical" people to use the template -- Scarbrowtalk 13:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC) ** In the current format, yes, it is necessary. I'll see if I can find a way to manage without this tag. --Hav0c 15:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC) *** Yeah, I tried having it display the rewards as a bullet list, but that really didn't work. I'd love to see that done somehow, but in the meantime I don't think using tags is all that difficult for non-technical users; just about everybody knows a little HTML these days, don't they? — Young Ned (talk) 00:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC) * When putting the new anchors, we should make sure that the anchor is just the name, eliminating the need to care about the (AG) part in the title and standardizing the naming of quests so they can be linked from any other page to the Quest List-- Scarbrowtalk 13:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC) ** This can be done without any issues. --Hav0c 15:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC) About Quest Documenting I'm not fully satisfied with the way we're documenting quests right now. For quests who are only in Quest List, we have no option except list rewards along with how to get them, what is perceived as spoilerish by many. For quests that also have its own page (like Quest:The Blood of Zardruzin) we have repeated information and the same spoiler problem. So I think it's time to change our approach to quest documenting. My proposals: # We can enclose all quests in the Quest List between tags. That way, the player that goes there (s)he can select which quest rewards to see, and is less prone to discover accidentally too much about an unrelated subject. It's a rather radical proposal, but quick and easy to implement. # We can enclose only the Rewards part between spoiler tags. The problem with this proposal, along with number 1, is that is would completely moot the purpose of the Questbox template. Or is it possible for the Questbox template to host a pair of Spoilertags?. # We can try to have a dedicated page with full spoiler potential for each and every quest, and then the Questbox template would only need to have Location, Description, Prereqs, Difficulty, and maybe some hints, and then link to the full quest page. This proposal, while it means a lot of work and is "too much" for some simple, quick quests, is probably safer in the long run, since it avoids duplication of quest info, spoiler potential on Quest List, fixes the old problem with synchronization between Quest List and Quest Index (the latter would become unnecessary) and helps standardizing. In the long run, we'll have the central Quest List, without spoilers, for all to check difficulties and locations of quests (I think those are the primary concerns of people who come to the wiki for a quick help), a full set of dedicated Quest Pages, with the standard names used on the Quest List, and of course all of the accessory pages for Locations, Game Concepts, etc. I see that one day it would be possible to see each location (e.g. Hawklor) with a table of adventures like Let's open a discussion about how we should do it. Sorry about the long rant ;-) Scarbrowtalk 13:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC) * I agree. The tags work fine even inside the box, as you can try out. However, your third suggestion seems to be the most elegant to me. It is a lot of work though. --Hav0c 15:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC) ** It's not more work than the migration itself, and I'm managing very well ;-). I think I'll start with first option once the migration is complete, leaving the "Questboxization" for later, once the new "anchorized" version is up (today I feel like making up words lol) Scarbrowtalk 00:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC) * Great ideas, Scarbrow! I like your third option, too. One suggestion: for the "simple, quick quests" that don't really need pages of their own, maybe we could have a "Simple Quests" or "Quest Details" page where they could all go? We'd still get all the benefits of simplifying the Quest List page, which would simply link to Quest Name instead of Quest Name as for the bigger quests. And we'd have visual consistency on Quest List between the ones with dedicated pages and the simpler ones. — Young Ned (talk) 00:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC) ** I'm glad you like it, Young Ned. Could you please specify how would your suggestion provide "visual consistency on Quest List between the ones with dedicated pages and the simpler ones"? The way I see it, if each and every quest had its own page, the format will be consistent: one quest, one page, one entry on Quest List. My objections to your idea: *** If you put several quests on a dedicated page, you're breaking the contract in which everybody should be able to trust: that if they link to a page with the name of a quest, it will be the one (long or short) with information about that quest. And if you add redirects, you could have put there the quest information instead of a redirect. *** By putting together several quests, no matter how small, we'll be risking again to spoil somebody about something that wasn't expected. The idea is that if you go to a quest page, it should not contain spoilers about other quests. And if it's necessary to say something, anything, about another quest (for example, that Quest:The Blood of Zardruzin is the next adventure to Vault of the Iron Dragon, that should be in another layer of protection. That way we could claim (after finishing this formatting) that the wiki is spoiler-safe, provided you use it this-and-this way. Scarbrowtalk 13:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC) ** Well, you were the one who said a separate page would be too much for some simple, quick quests; I was just trying to come up with a solution to that. If you don't want a solution to that, why did you make that objection? I'm confuzzled. If you want to just give every quest its own page, that's fine. With the "visual consistency" comment, I was assuming that the alternative to creating a combined page would be to leave the simple quests on the Quest List page, since you didn't seem to want to give them their own pages. Having some quests explained in full while others had a link to another page would be inconsistent. Having all quests link somewhere else, even if some of the links went to a combined page rather than individual pages, would be much more consistent. Does that make sense now? — Young Ned (talk) 09:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC) ** I was just thinking about this since I found it hard to navigate the quests. Since the game is very addicting and looks like it will be around (and has been around) for a long time, I think I will try to contribute what I can, especially as I recently started (2+ weeks) and can pretty much scrub through the quests in their entirety. I think an article for each quest makes the most sense in terms of growth, organization, and flexibility. The only disadvantage is that short quests are basically stubs, but I doubt anyone cares here. At the least, those articles would still have location and description information. The one additional thing that I think would be helpful for a non-spoiler quest entry would be the types of rewards to expect e.g. General/Specific/AS&P XP, +MR/SP/NV items. K!ZeRo 10:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC) *** I'm sorry to have confused you, I agree the original paragraph is confusing. What I meant is that a dedicated page for a quest that can be explained in two lines (a stub) is almost "too much", but I still think it's the better option in terms of consistency. Seems we have a consensus here: all quests is Quest List should link to a page with the full explanation, be it long or short. Regarding K!ZeRo's suggestion, the fact that the Quest List right now lists the rewards along with the description is the reason most players consider it "too spoilerish". If you want to know details about a quest, you'll have the option of checking the entire page, or asking in the forum. Scarbrowtalk 18:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC) **** For the rewards, I meant nothing specific, but more of "Will give AS&P XP". Sometimes, a criterion on what quest to perform would be "no AS&P XP" while I don't have many powers, and that would be a useful filter. Likewise, maybe someone wants to get more SP (for grinding) through quest items, and would do quests that "Will give +SP item". Nothing specific, but don't know if that is considered too spoilerish or not. Anyway, it's something that can easily be added after the fact. K!ZeRo 22:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC) ***** I think the "Will give AS&P XP" warning is a good one, without indicating how much will it really be. Could you put it on the to-do list for the "new version" of the template, Hav0c? It only needs to be a true/false field. I'm not so sure about the objects, though. Maybe you could set up a parallel page with a list of items you can get from quests (it would really be just a list or table). For example, from exploring Hawklor you'll have to list the Ring of Souls. I doubt the necessity of that list, however. If you want to build up your character quickly, you can use the Character Startup Guide, while if you want to explore a quest in advance you'll always have the full quest page. Scarbrowtalk 02:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC) ****** I really like the elegance of Scarbrow's suggestion at the start of this section - with the added qualifier that the links in the last column of the 'Adventures' table for each location link to pages in the Quest: namespace. ****** Speaking of which - is the Quest: namespace active yet? And if so, can we start moving quest pages (and creating new pages) into this namespace? And regarding this transition - should we have re-directs from current URLs to the new namespace URLs? Or does MediaWiki handle that automatically?--Joddelle 01:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC) RESTART INDENT: The 'Quest' and 'Item' Namespaces are now active. To add pages to these namespaces, please use the create links on the right side of the main page --Havoc(talk) 12:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC) : If you use the "move" button to move the article to the Quest namespace (or to any other place, BTW), the MediaWiki software adds a redirect to the new location automatically Scarbrowtalk 23:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC) New Template parameters From what I can see, the parameters needed for the new template are: # Quest Name #* This will have a 'Heading Level' parameter, similar to Template:Itembox. #* The Quest name will automagically link to a page containing the quest itself. # AG status #* Like the current version, will show up after the quest name, and will affect the colour of the bar. # Location # Quest Description # Difficulty # Prerequisites # A 'warning' if the quest gives rewards to all skills and powers. # Notes, if any #* The notes will show up in a separate section, again like Template:Itembox. If this is fine with everyone, I'll go ahead and make the changes.--Havoc(talk) 07:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC) :I like these parameters. A slightly trivial matter, but I also like the order that you have the parameters listed, except swap Prereqs and Difficulty (I think fulfilling the prereq would have to come first before considering if it is too difficult). K!ZeRo 07:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC) :That sounds great, Havoc. Swapping Prereqs and Difficulty makes sense, too. — Young Ned (talk) 12:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC) :I agree too. Thanks Hav0c. Scarbrowtalk 15:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC) :: I've made the changes as discussed. --Havoc(talk) 15:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC) ::: I've fixed some typos and added advice in Syntax about the necessity of using tags. Notes parameter is now out of the table, since the doesn't follow its line style parameters if the options for the whole table are set at border=0. Scarbrowtalk 00:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC) AS&P and AT rewards Don't know, I kinda liked the previous version, with each "additional" field in its own little box. Aside from this, I know I added the new AT parameter, but the more I think about it, the more I see its spoiler potential. Don't you think it gives too much information for a quick summary? That's why I was trying to do Template:TestTemplate, to enclose that section in spoilertags, defaulting to a "no special bonus" so the player doesn't know before expanding the spoilertag if that's going to contain s special bonus or not. Would be quite too hard to read, however, to have so many Spoilerblocks around there. Scarbrowtalk 17:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC) : My main reason for setting it up the way I did, is that all non-discretionary parameters are above the line. The notes parameter, which is quite subjective, and depends on who filled it out, is clearly separate from the others. : As for the AT parameter, I'm indifferent as to whether we include it or not. I don't see it as much of a spoiler to know that a certain quest gives me a chance to earn AT, nor do I see a large advantage in knowing this information beforehand. --Havoc(talk) 17:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC) : What Hav0c said. I don't see as all that much of a spoiler either; I think it can be left as is. — Young Ned (talk) 11:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC) Converted startup scenarios to use template So I did an overhaul of Startup Scenarios to use the questbox template and link to individual quest pages, as an initial test before I mess too much with the Quest List. Comments? Will this be how we want the Quest List to work then? Some things I noticed: # Need a way to show "AG" in the Table of Contents as mentioned on Talk:Quest_List#Began_update_to_questbox_template.2C_found_a_bug # With the dark purple background, it is hard to read the quest names. Should it be made a lighter background with dark text? # For these short startup quests, the overall spacing between questbox templates look too small, but maybe a lighter background title color can fix it; not a big deal anyway. # Noticed that "Loc" is a required parameter. I don't know if there are other exceptions than these startup scenarios, but I filled them in as "N/A". This may look weird. K!ZeRo 08:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC) :: It think you've done it perfectly. You can go ahead with Quest List, if you want. :: About the Talk:Quest_List#Began_update_to_questbox_template.2C_found_a_bug question, I've voiced my opinion there, others can add as they want. :: I don't have any problem reading Questbox titles, but be free to propose changes (maybe edit it yourself, revert, and post the diff) :: I find the spacing between questbox templates adequate (in fact, the smaller the spacing, the more quest we'll be able to add into what HAv0c calls "screen real state"), but as the question before, feel free to propose changes. I feel that since Questboxes are very brief summaries, it doesn't hurt they are small themselves in the screen :: N/A doesn't sound good to me: seems to hint that there is some information we don't know. Maybe "Selectable at Startup" would fit better for these ones. I'll change them later unless somebody gets there before me. :: Scarbrowtalk 15:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC) ::: Yeah, I think the spacing is okay after all. But I remembered the other reason for wanting a light title background is that the underlined link doesn't show up well (blue for existing article or red for dead link). I know that there is a difference in the title text depending on if a separate quest article exists or not; I wanted to confirm with Hav0c if there was then a specific reason for the background color. I think that the blue/red link colors is a good wiki guide, so I think lighter colors wouldn't interfere with that. I will try to edit the template with a lighter color, but revert if necessary. EDIT: I'll leave things as-is unless others feel it could be better, since the change is fairly arbitrary. K!ZeRotalk 08:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC) :::: Startup Scenarios looks really good; nice job. I know what you mean about blue & red links indicating whether the page exists or not; that's such a standard convention here in Wikia, and in Wikipedia itself, that it does seem like it would be confusing to have white/yellow links instead. Maybe you should ask on Havoc's talk page about it; he doesn't seem to be responding on this page, so he may not have noticed the discussion here. — Young Ned (talk) 06:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC) ::::: Apologies for the lack of response. The links are currently white/yellow in order to stand out against the purple background. If you can give me a hex-code for a shade on which blue/red is clearly visible, and which is also visually distinct from the colour used by Template:Itembox, I can change it. --Havoc(talk) 06:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC) Auto-categorization I am thinking to add an Optional "Categorize" parameter, similar to what was recently added for Template:Itembox. It would categorize quests for AS&P XP, and ATs. I just like to avoid lots of re-work down the line, and it seems that doing this would facilitate future quest categories. Also, I like the way the items organization is headed with transclusions, and I can see that happening with quests too. Maybe having the questbox called on the individual quest page, with the Quest List and location pages transcluding the quest page. So I'm trying to do everything the same. K!ZeRotalk 07:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC) I ended up adding it in to the template, and will test it out later on the Startup Scenarios page. Also, I noticed that our Labeled Section Transclusion extension seems to be installed and working (see Sandbox). One possible use for it could be as follows: Each quest has its individual quest page, with its questbox at the top of the page and a TOC, walkthrough, maps, details, etc following it. The questbox would use the same tricks as item pages, and automatically categorize the quest page. Then, the Quest List would transclude individual quest pages, and location sections within the Quest List would be "labeled". Then, on individual location pages, we can simply transclude the appropriate location section of the Quest List. This method avoids duplicate work while still providing several good ways for someone to find the quest they want, with the possibility to easily add quest categories in the future. One category I'd like to see would be based on difficulty (e.g. 30-50 MR quests), but it wouldn't be trivial. The slight problem I see is that the questbox on a quest page might "look" weird, but I'll see with some testing. K!ZeRotalk 03:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC) : I rather like your ideas overall. --Havoc(talk) 03:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC) :: Yeah, it's good to have another "hard-core" categorizer/templater here. Only question, now we have the extension, wouldn't it be easier to have the Questboxes directly on the Quest List page, and the location pages selectively transcluding sections of it? That way, the maintenance of Questboxes can be centralized in Quest List, making it easier for casual contributors to throw the odd correction or suggestion. Moreover, since the only unique identifier we have for quests is their name (saved for Into the Cellar, which is the name for both the first Goblinclaw Inn adventure and one of the old Deepwell quests), we should reserve the use of that name for the complete Quest page, as previously discussed. Scarbrowtalk 02:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC) ::Another point of view into it: as I mentioned before on Template talk:Itembox and Sryth_Wiki_talk:Community_Portal#New_namespaces, the Itembox contains all the information needed about an item, while the Questbox is just a summary of the quest. That's why Items get a full page each with an Itembox, and Quests do not need one. Unless we're going to transclude Questboxes on other pages that are not Quest List, which I would advise against. Scarbrowtalk 02:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC) ::: I understand your points, and had an internal debate myself whether to have quest "maintenance" (questbox) on the Quest List or on individual quest pages. But if we are going to have individual quest pages for all quests (I thought we were going down that route), then I would want to put the questbox on each individual page. Also if we desire auto-categorization, then we must have the questbox template called on the individual pages that we want categorized. I think that if the questbox title linked to the individual quest page, it would be fairly simple for an editor to see that the quest details are not on the location/quest list, click the link to the individual page, and edit it. A counterargument about ease of maintenance would be that if the quest details are on an individual page, the questbox should also be located in the same place. Your point about unique identifiers, I personally don't mind disambiguations in exchange for simple article titles (which I will mention in the forum for the namespace discussion). K!ZeRotalk 08:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC) :::: Your counter-arguments have convinced me at last. In fact, you've finally provided a reason to ask for the Quest namespace: we could allocate the pages with the Questboxes in the Quest namespace. Thus, we'd have the Quest:A Haunting in Durnsig page with the Questbox, the A Haunting in Durnsig page with the full details and walkthrough (transcluding the previous one), and finally we'd have the Quest List#A_Haunting_in_Durnsig entry, again transcluding Quest:A Haunting in Durnsig. Because of the Categorize parameter, the quest page would be categorized but Quest List wouldn't be subject to this. We could have our original idea of a Quest List page consisting only in Questboxes, and furthermore we'd have a system to link to a spoiler-free summary of the quest, without risking the user seeing other unrelated quests. We wouldn't even need the Labeled Section Transclusion, which I think could confuse users. This system is near perfection, if you ask me :D Scarbrowtalk 23:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC) RESTART INDENT Where would we put links to the Quest namespace page, for quests that have 2 pages? On one hand, 2 pages for a quest can be more complicated than necessary, but then this also provides a good way to handle those small quests that might just need a Questbox only. Depending on how we provide links to both the questbox and quest walkthrough, I could do either 1 or 2 pages per quest. And I think Labeled Section Transclusion is a nice way to put questboxes on Location pages, but we can figure that out later. K!ZeRotalk 05:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC) :Like I said on Sryth Wiki talk:Community Portal, I prefer just a single page for each quest, within the quest namespace. This would have the questbox on the top, and any additional details such as a map or a walkthrough below, possibly under spoiler tags. In order for the auto-categorization to work properly, we can use parserfunctions and the magic word to check the namespace that the page is in, and categorize it appropriately. --Havoc(talk) 14:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC) ::The problem I see, Hav0c, is that would completely defeat the purpose of having a custom namespace for quests. I mean, why should we change the current A Haunting in Durnsig page title for a longer Quest:A Haunting in Durnsig, if we make all details into the same page? You can argue that we will already have a page with only questboxes on it, and that will be the Quest List. My counter to that is: but that way, you risk ending looking to another quests as well, since many a Questbox fit in one screen. The Quest namespace page with only the appropriate Questbox serves the primary purpose of being the place where to refer somebody if you want to give him/her just a peek of a quest, and nothing more than that. I'm thinking of e-mail and forum references, too. KISS principle, you know. There should be a way to show only what we want. And also, if you want to link or reference a quest from some place other than the Quest List, you can link the three locations where information is: "Quest List#Name of Quest", "Quest:Name of Quest" and "Name of Quest". This system offers a greater flexibility, and more options for future editors. ::This arguments nonetheless, I'm totally OK with the full quest page, with the walkthrough, having the Questbox transcluded. It can even be labeled so we can use our new fancy Labeled Section Transclusion extension. I just strive for the greatest flexibility Scarbrowtalk 04:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC) ::: I understand your point. My main reason for wanting a single page is to keep all editable information in one spot. Perhaps we could keep Quest:Name of quest as the main page, with all information, and have a sub page Quest:Name of quest/box which transcludes only the box from the main page. The Quest list would also transclude this box directly from the main page. --Havoc(talk) 07:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC) :::: I think that the Quest List with ability to anchor to a questbox fulfills the "quick peek" feature and allows a way to reference from (external) other places; and because our questboxes strives to be spoiler-free as its intended purpose, the Quest List should be "safe" enough. So I like the 1 page/quest approach. I do agree with the longer, different name, but I think the same thing applies to the Item namespace, so if our purpose is to organize our content, then we will have to compromise with the page naming convention. And that was what I was remarking about having to make redirects, but I think it is a warranted tradeoff. A little more maintenance, but hopefully clearer organization. K!ZeRotalk 15:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC) HeadingLevel in Quest Namespace I've added a warning in the template documentation, about not using the Headinglevel parameter in that namespace. The reason is, when the questbox is transcluded, we don't know where is going to end up, and thus it may scramble the ToC (as it happened in Kyul-Thanor, see this oldid). Please discuss here if you think otherwise. Scarbrowtalk 17:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC) AG Parameter Is there any way to make it so it doesn't matter if it is wrutten |AG = true or |AG = True ? Currently the latter does not work and the adventure is not marked as AG.--Shadowblack 19:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC) :Currently, it's a literal text match: must be 'true' and nothing else. I'll take a look at it. Scarbrowtalk 20:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC) ::At the cost of considerable complexity, I've managed to allow True too. Maybe there is a better way, should Havoc take a look at it. For the moment, I've done it only for the AG parameter. Should I do it for the rest of 'true' parameters? Scarbrowtalk 20:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC) :::One thing I just noticed: If you use 'true' for AG the background color is purple. If you use 'True' the background color is brown even though the quest is still marked as AG (as seen on the page for Return of Ironfist). I guess the part that sets the background color checks only for 'true'. :::Instead of complicating things with changes to the templates how about we leave it as it was and use only 'true', but add a warning that it MUST be 'true' and that 'True' will not work? So that people would know...--Shadowblack 22:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC) :::: As you can see, Hav0c has improved my design, now it correctly allows the use of both True and true. Scarbrowtalk 03:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Add Limited Time Event parameter? Similar to Template:Itembox, should there be a LimitedTime parameter? This could aid quests that use questbox to auto-cat in Category:Limited-time events. Wondering if there is a reason not to do so. The category would still be partially manually maintained due to non-quest (event) articles that use it. K!ZeRotalk 07:52, October 3, 2010 (UTC) : Are there enough of them? If there are just a few, a manually maintained caterory is just as good, and easier due to not having to check template for parameters. Scarbrowtalk 02:05, October 4, 2010 (UTC) :: I think there will be enough eventually. I've manually added a couple to the limited-time category for now, so there are 7 current quests now. I think that some of the long pages, like A Contest of Bows and Glowing Goblin, or possible re-used events could be converted into quest pages when additional installments occur. K!ZeRotalk 05:05, October 4, 2010 (UTC) ::: I personally don't see any compelling reasons either to do it or to not do it. Proceed with the changes if you want. Just take care you remove the manual categorizing marks from the quests if your put the autocategorize parameter. Careful with that, too: the brackets nesting is a nightmare Scarbrowtalk 16:25, October 4, 2010 (UTC) Sagas I removed the Previous Quest and Next Quest parameters as requiring too much micromanagement. A link to the Saga page will allow someone to see related quests without much more effort, and there's no need to go back later and add in the next quest. I'll try to find pages that had this parameter included and update them. Psychoadept 23:30, May 30, 2012 (UTC)